This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

An article in today's edition of The Wall Street Journal touches on the implications of space-related investment and it also notes that competitors are forging ahead aggressively with their own space programs. The newspaper reports:

Losing the lead in space has national-security and industrial consequences. Such industries as shipping, airlines and oil exploration depend on orbiting satellites to gather and send essential data. TV signals, cell phones, ATMs, some credit card machines and many Internet connections rely on space technology. Recent estimates peg global civilian and military spending on space and space-related technologies at more than $260 billion annually...

The importance of space has drawn the European Union and more countries into the race. Russia, China, India and Brazil all have, or are determined to create, robust space programs. By 2016, China aims to develop and test a heavy-lift booster capable of blasting five tons of cargo into orbit—a timetable far more ambitious than anything on NASA's drawing board.

While the details of the new U.S. strategy have not yet been fully disclosed, it will be important to see whether the U.S. has not only an overriding big picture goal, but an aggressive one. It will be equally important to see whether the U.S. is committed to investing the resources into achieving that goal and whether it describes a rigorous assessment mechanism so as to meet its space-related objectives in a timely and economical fashion e.g., to avoid an F-35 program-type debacle. The absence of an aggressive overriding goal, investment commitment, and robust assessment mechanism would indicate that the U.S., to be blunt, is essentially committing itself to little more than "marching in place" and harvesting its present capabilities, until it works out a renewed mission/purpose/commitment to space-related investment/research in the future.

In the meantime, other states interested in developing or expanding their space-related technologies and capabilities won't be standing idly by. China is pursuing increasingly bold objectives with respect to its young space program. Some excerpts from a recent Space.com piece:

China is planning to launch three spacecraft between 2011 and 2016 to form the basis of a manned space station, the director of the Chinese Manned Space Engineering Office (CMSEO) said Wednesday...

To supply this orbiting laboratory, China is developing a cargo-carrying spacecraft that will hold no less than 5.5 tons (5,000 kg), Wenbao said. That's about twice as much cargo capacity as Russia's Progress unmanned spacecraft, which currently services the International Space Station (ISS), and a little less than the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV), which also flies to the ISS.

To be sure, China is currently covering ground that has already been covered to a large extent by the U.S. and Russia. But down the road, especially if the U.S. adopts what amounts to a tentative or, worse, minimalist posture on space, China could begin breaking new ground, at least vis-a-vis the U.S. Moreover, if it is able to translate its competitive advantages in various manufacturing sectors into similar edges in space-related technologies/capabilities, China could also position itself to receive higher returns per currency unit of investment into its space program.

In the end, were China or some other nation to develop a qualitative edge in space-related technologies/capabilities, the historic experience with disruptive technologies that reach such a stage, indicates that it would be very difficult for those who lose their edge to regain it. Given the looming fiscal imbalances that lie ahead for the U.S., the U.S. could be in an even worse position to try to regain its competitive edge in space-related technologies/capabilities should it lose it, not to mention the invariable spin-offs/other benefits that arise from those technologies/capabilities.

At present, the U.S. retains an edge in space-related technologies/capabilities. However, that advantage is eroding. Whether the new program will represent a positive commitment to retaining/strengthening U.S. advantages or the continuation of drift that leads to foregone opportunities remains to be seen. The presence or absence of a clear and aggressive overriding goal, investment commitment, and robust assessment mechanism will provide insight into the new U.S. posture.

An article in today's edition of The Wall Street Journal touches on the implications of space-related investment and it also notes that competitors are forging ahead aggressively with their own space programs. The newspaper reports:

Losing the lead in space has national-security and industrial consequences. Such industries as shipping, airlines and oil exploration depend on orbiting satellites to gather and send essential data. TV signals, cell phones, ATMs, some credit card machines and many Internet connections rely on space technology. Recent estimates peg global civilian and military spending on space and space-related technologies at more than $260 billion annually...

The importance of space has drawn the European Union and more countries into the race. Russia, China, India and Brazil all have, or are determined to create, robust space programs. By 2016, China aims to develop and test a heavy-lift booster capable of blasting five tons of cargo into orbit—a timetable far more ambitious than anything on NASA's drawing board.

While the details of the new U.S. strategy have not yet been fully disclosed, it will be important to see whether the U.S. has not only an overriding big picture goal, but an aggressive one. It will be equally important to see whether the U.S. is committed to investing the resources into achieving that goal and whether it describes a rigorous assessment mechanism so as to meet its space-related objectives in a timely and economical fashion e.g., to avoid an F-35 program-type debacle. The absence of an aggressive overriding goal, investment commitment, and robust assessment mechanism would indicate that the U.S., to be blunt, is essentially committing itself to little more than "marching in place" and harvesting its present capabilities, until it works out a renewed mission/purpose/commitment to space-related investment/research in the future.

In the meantime, other states interested in developing or expanding their space-related technologies and capabilities won't be standing idly by. China is pursuing increasingly bold objectives with respect to its young space program. Some excerpts from a recent Space.com piece:

China is planning to launch three spacecraft between 2011 and 2016 to form the basis of a manned space station, the director of the Chinese Manned Space Engineering Office (CMSEO) said Wednesday...

To supply this orbiting laboratory, China is developing a cargo-carrying spacecraft that will hold no less than 5.5 tons (5,000 kg), Wenbao said. That's about twice as much cargo capacity as Russia's Progress unmanned spacecraft, which currently services the International Space Station (ISS), and a little less than the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV), which also flies to the ISS.

To be sure, China is currently covering ground that has already been covered to a large extent by the U.S. and Russia. But down the road, especially if the U.S. adopts what amounts to a tentative or, worse, minimalist posture on space, China could begin breaking new ground, at least vis-a-vis the U.S. Moreover, if it is able to translate its competitive advantages in various manufacturing sectors into similar edges in space-related technologies/capabilities, China could also position itself to receive higher returns per currency unit of investment into its space program.

In the end, were China or some other nation to develop a qualitative edge in space-related technologies/capabilities, the historic experience with disruptive technologies that reach such a stage, indicates that it would be very difficult for those who lose their edge to regain it. Given the looming fiscal imbalances that lie ahead for the U.S., the U.S. could be in an even worse position to try to regain its competitive edge in space-related technologies/capabilities should it lose it, not to mention the invariable spin-offs/other benefits that arise from those technologies/capabilities.

At present, the U.S. retains an edge in space-related technologies/capabilities. However, that advantage is eroding. Whether the new program will represent a positive commitment to retaining/strengthening U.S. advantages or the continuation of drift that leads to foregone opportunities remains to be seen. The presence or absence of a clear and aggressive overriding goal, investment commitment, and robust assessment mechanism will provide insight into the new U.S. posture.

now explain for us what technological edge will be lost to us, which advancement would have otherwise been afforded by pursuing the constellation program

this lunar landing was a solution in search of a problem

we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it ​

and he advocates heavy lift, manned flight and long-term space habitation. These things are not spelled out in the President's plan.

you missed his point - that he support's the president's decision to move forward and not go over ground plowed 40 years ago

while i personally do not agree with the need for the manned project to mars, as Aldrin advocates, at least there is a vision ... a purpose to be achieved. you have offered nothing similar to revisit the moon. now, if the vision was to accomplish moon mining for He3 as a long term energy source, i could find that compelling. but that potential project has been discarded as an intended effort within the past year

we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it ​

you missed his point - that he support's the president's decision to move forward and not go over ground plowed 40 years ago

while i personally do not agree with the need for the manned project to mars, as Aldrin advocates, at least there is a vision ... a purpose to be achieved. you have offered nothing similar to revisit the moon. now, if the vision was to accomplish moon mining for He3 as a long term energy source, i could find that compelling. but that potential project has been discarded as an intended effort within the past year

My reason to build a moon base is to have a cheap place to have humans go recover from the effects of zero-G. Cheap in the sense that it takes 1/4 the lift capability to get out of the gravity well, back to zero-G. I also like mining operations for materials and gases. That will come.